2 Fear of death and polarization
2.1 COVID-19 as an exogenous shock
A call to arms, but which war will leaders fight?
The false dilemma of Bolsonaro:
Economic consequences
vs.
Risks to health
Group attainment
In-group > against social distancing (and in favor of Bolsonaro)2 Aligned with this position, presidents of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega; Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko; and Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, also refused to enact measures of social distancing. At the beginning of the pandemic, the presidents of the United States, Donald Trump; Mexico, López Obrador; Russia, Vladimir Putin; and the Italian Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, were also reluctant to support social distancing, but ended up changing their position and started to advocate that the population stay at home.
vs.
Out-group > in favor of social distancing (and against Bolsonaro)
This also turned into a federative conflict (Bolsonaro vs. State Governors) but we will go back to that conflict later
2.2 Still a divided country, but how?
There has been a strong increase in political polarization in Brazil since 2013, triggered by nationwide mass demonstrations that occurred that year 3 (Kingstone and Power 2017)
The increasing polarization was visible throughout all social strata, including the vulnerable population and the political and economic elite, and it took over the country during the 2018 elections 4 (Hunter and Power 2019)
The Workers’ Party (PT) center-left wing hegemonic, institutionalized and “traditional” party
Bolsonaro, who adopted the notion of “antipetismo” (Anti-PT) 5 (Bello 2019; Samuels & Zucco 2018) and grasped the expectations of another social group and promised to deliver “new politics” based on anti-establishment
- in 2018, Bolsonaro was elected with 55% of votes
2.3 Bolsonaro, THE populist
fulfill the expectations of “cleansing” Brazilian politics by building a platform that was initially anti-PT, but essentially anti-party, defending the idea that all acronyms and their members would be equally part of a corrupt elite.
identity framework that denies the institutions and praises the direct connection between the political leader and the voters.
myth-making process and the homogenization of the categories “elites” and “people,” identified as antagonistic 6 (Bos et al., 2020; Mudde, 2004; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2012)
Bolsonaro chose to govern as a minority. To circumvent this fragility, he sought to establish direct connections with voters, adopting a kind of plebiscitary presidentialism 7 (Conaghan, 2008)
In Congress, he worked by forming cyclical majorities to vote aligned with the executive branch’s preferences, constraining legislators through pressure from public opinion.
Bolsonaro governed in a permanent campaign of polarization. The conspiratorial tone has been a fundamental part of this government crusade against indefinite enemies that emerge every day 8 (Kovic & Caspar, 2019)
(the now) classical definition of a right-wing populist - exclusionary, nativist (?)
Still to understand the rise of exclusionary populism in a such an unequal country: conservatism ties
2.4 Polarizing the disease (or the fight against it)
New sort of polarization (although less polarized than the left-right spectrum)
From center to left: no major disagreements (they were mostly against Bolsonaro)
But right (potentially, the bulk of Bolsonaro supporters) was now divided
2.5 The right - Bolsonaro was wrong?
2.6 The pandemic impacted popularity in Different ways
2.7 At that time (may, 2020)
Population’s fear of losing lives with the new coronavirus outweighs the risks of economic crisis
As individuals became aware of fatal victims among their acquaintances, they became more favorable of social distancing and willing to follow such policy for longer.
Also, the respondents evaluated the president’s performance as ‘worse’ and the governors’ as ‘better.’
The right was now divided: how identity connections between the group and its leader changed?
